In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants (1914)

Record Details:

Title:
In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants
Date:
1914
Publisher:
New York, Appeal Printing Co.
Volume:
In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants : record volume 5
Leaf #:
000341
Language:
English
Collection:
Government & Law and Early Cinema
Format:
Periodicals
Contributor:
The Museum of Modern Art Library, New York
Sponsor:
Media History Digital Library
Coordinator:
Media History Digital Library
Description:
These seven volumes contain the testimonies and supporting documents from the U.S. District Court's antitrust lawsuit against the Motion Picture Patents Company (MPPC). Formed in 1908, the MPPC (sometimes referred to asœ"the Edison Trust" or just "the Trust") sought to control the American film industry through pooling patents and demanding that producers and exhibitors acquire licenses to those patents. Independent producers and exhibitors, who refused to license the patents, argued that the MPPC was an unlawful monopoly. In 1912 and 1913, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania heard testimonies from both MPPC members, such as Siegmund Lubin, and "Independents" who later became Hollywood moguls, such as William Fox. Ultimately, in 1915, the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which found the MPPC in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and spelled the end for the already weakening MPPC. -- Eric Hoyt, 2012
Date Added:
September 21, 2023
Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

Cornelius D. Struble, Direct Examination. 2791 Q. Did you do that frequently or infrequently? A. Well, I would not say we did it frequently, although there was a time about, well, I should say in the Summer of 1909, when we were forced to do it by the competition at different times. Q. You mean by that, competition in violating the release day rule? A. Competition in violating the rule. Q. Did you find that other exchanges followed the same practice? A. They did. We never took the initiative in doing it, but where we had to do it to protect our customers, we did. Q. Was there any specific town or exchange with which you had special trouble of this sort? A. I could mention Fort Worth, Texas. We had accounts in that town, and the J. D. Wheelan Company of Dallas, also had accounts there, and we were forced to ship the films there ahead of the release date in order to meet the competition. Q. Licensed film or unlicensed film? A. Licensed. Q. Did you have any experience with any other exchange violating the release day rule? A. Yes, sir; we had the same trouble with the Mitchell Film Exchange, which was then located in Little Rock. Q. Did this happen on more than one occasion with the Mitchell Exchange at Little Rock? A. On a great many occasions. Also, we had the same trouble with the Oklahoma City Film Exchange, located in Oklahoma City. Q. That was an institution in your own city? A. Yes. sir. Q. Do you recall that the Motion Picture Patents Company at one time collected the royalties for the use of the projecting machines directly from the exhibitors, and subsequently had the exchanges make the collections? A. I do, sir. Q. Was that change favored by you? A. Well, I don't recall how we took it at the time. Q. Did any inconvenience arise at the beginning from the fact that the Patents Company was collecting the royalties from the exhibitors? A. Yes. sir. It was rather inconvenient for the exchange, for the reason that we never knew when an exhibitor's royalty was paid, and when it was not, and some of them would claim they had paid their royalties, and possibly they had not. and we had